Trial Ends For Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes (msn.com) 86
"Both sides made closing arguments this week in Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes' fraud trial," reports Business Insider:
Prosecutors said Holmes "chose to be dishonest" and that her allegations of abuse, which were a key part of her defense, were irrelevant. The defense said "rats flee a sinking ship" but Holmes stayed, noting "that's who that woman is...."
Prosecutors kicked off their arguments by recapping testimony from each of their 29 witnesses. They argued that Holmes saw money dry up at Theranos while its progress languished and had to decide whether to "watch Theranos slowly fail" or defraud investors and patients. "She chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest," said Assistant US attorney Jeffrey Schenk, according to NBC News. "That choice was not only callous, it was criminal."
Prosecutors revisited Holmes' bombshell admissions during her seven days of testimony, including that she added pharmaceutical companies' logos to validation reports without authorization and kept Theranos' use of modified third-party devices a secret. Holmes has said she wanted to convey that the reports were the result of work done with those pharmaceutical companies and that she withheld information about the use of commercial devices because it was a trade secret.
The New York Times argues historians will see the trial as "a case study in the use of clothing to affect opinion (public and judicial) and, if not to make friends, at least to influence people. Or try to." When the verdict comes down, the transformation of the wunderkind founder of Theranos from black-clad genius to besuited milquetoast will be an integral part of the story. Did it work, or was it a seemingly transparent effort to play the relatable card? Rarely has there been as stark an example of Before and After.... Gone were her signature black turtlenecks and black slacks; gone the bright red lipstick and blond hair ironed straight as a board or pulled into a chignon.... Instead there was ... sartorial neutrality, in the form of a light gray pantsuit and light blue button-down shirt, worn untucked, with baby pink lipstick. She looked more like the college student trying on a grown-up interview look than the mastermind of a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme.... There was not a power heel or a power shoulder in sight. The only part of her outfit that was branded in any way was her diaper bag backpack (her son was born in July), which was from Freshly Picked and costs around $175...
The net effect of Ms. Holmes's makeover was middle manager or backup secretarial character in a streaming series about masters of the universe (but not her! uh-uh), with the diaper bag functioning as an implicit reminder of her maternal status and family values. In case that accessory wasn't enough, she often entered the courthouse with an actual family member — her mother, her partner — in tow, and a hand to cling to. It was code-switching of the most skillful kind. It was relatable. One of the stereotypes of Silicon Valley's superstars, after all, is that they are other: speaking in bits, relating to machines more than people; living, literally, in a different reality. When you want a jury to sympathize with your plight, you have to make them imagine themselves in your shoes. Which means, you need to look, if not like them, at least like someone they might know.
Prosecutors kicked off their arguments by recapping testimony from each of their 29 witnesses. They argued that Holmes saw money dry up at Theranos while its progress languished and had to decide whether to "watch Theranos slowly fail" or defraud investors and patients. "She chose fraud over business failure. She chose to be dishonest," said Assistant US attorney Jeffrey Schenk, according to NBC News. "That choice was not only callous, it was criminal."
Prosecutors revisited Holmes' bombshell admissions during her seven days of testimony, including that she added pharmaceutical companies' logos to validation reports without authorization and kept Theranos' use of modified third-party devices a secret. Holmes has said she wanted to convey that the reports were the result of work done with those pharmaceutical companies and that she withheld information about the use of commercial devices because it was a trade secret.
The New York Times argues historians will see the trial as "a case study in the use of clothing to affect opinion (public and judicial) and, if not to make friends, at least to influence people. Or try to." When the verdict comes down, the transformation of the wunderkind founder of Theranos from black-clad genius to besuited milquetoast will be an integral part of the story. Did it work, or was it a seemingly transparent effort to play the relatable card? Rarely has there been as stark an example of Before and After.... Gone were her signature black turtlenecks and black slacks; gone the bright red lipstick and blond hair ironed straight as a board or pulled into a chignon.... Instead there was ... sartorial neutrality, in the form of a light gray pantsuit and light blue button-down shirt, worn untucked, with baby pink lipstick. She looked more like the college student trying on a grown-up interview look than the mastermind of a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme.... There was not a power heel or a power shoulder in sight. The only part of her outfit that was branded in any way was her diaper bag backpack (her son was born in July), which was from Freshly Picked and costs around $175...
The net effect of Ms. Holmes's makeover was middle manager or backup secretarial character in a streaming series about masters of the universe (but not her! uh-uh), with the diaper bag functioning as an implicit reminder of her maternal status and family values. In case that accessory wasn't enough, she often entered the courthouse with an actual family member — her mother, her partner — in tow, and a hand to cling to. It was code-switching of the most skillful kind. It was relatable. One of the stereotypes of Silicon Valley's superstars, after all, is that they are other: speaking in bits, relating to machines more than people; living, literally, in a different reality. When you want a jury to sympathize with your plight, you have to make them imagine themselves in your shoes. Which means, you need to look, if not like them, at least like someone they might know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you need is a shrink.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. Clearly a psychopath.
Re: Prison Rape - Where's she headed next? (Score:2)
Neither have I.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to fix yourself
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They only 'fix' people to the point where they can function reasonably in society (which means they can still be really messed up).
she will go to the martha stewart prison! (Score:2)
she will go to the martha stewart prison!
Based on the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Also, to all that hyped her up because she was a woman that did what no man could do: In your face!
Women are not inferior to men. But they are not superior either. Claiming so is deeply sexist.
Re: (Score:2)
i mean, technically they were right; i doubt a man could have gotten away with this level of technical fraud nowadays.
smash that glass ceiling! you go, girl!
Re: (Score:2)
i mean, technically they were right; i doubt a man could have gotten away with this level of technical fraud nowadays.
smash that glass ceiling! you go, girl!
Hehehehe, true. In that regard, women _are_ currently superior.
I mean it was totally obvious that she could never deliver back then, because she did not have the the experience or education needed, regardless of how much talent she supposedly had. Turns out my (and many other's) first assessment back then was right on the mark. Of course, an irrational and aggressive army of cheerleaders is a pretty good asset when running a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
i mean, technically they were right; i doubt a man could have gotten away with this level of technical fraud nowadays.
Eh. It seems to happen all the time. Size of the company makes a difference. I think the trick that she missed out on was diversification. When their stock price was up, they should have bought out a bunch of smaller biotech companies. When you have just one big product and it's a fraud, all your company value goes away and you don't have the clout for massive fraud to just be a civil matter. I mean, there are companies that have committed fraud on incredibly massive scales with millions of customers over m
Re: (Score:2)
Women are not inferior to men.
That's correct - she has shown that women can be every bit as despicable as men.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the rich (like Holmes) do it best. Nah I don't suppose she's a changed soul or anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're going to judge someone based upon a summary in /.??? I don't know if she's guilty or not, but it seems that the article is making public judgement simply based upon her appearance. That's just bullshit. Anyone who goes to court with a clue would know to make themselves look as innocent as possible, weather they did it (whatever the "it" may be) or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the liberals are turning on the liberal politicians.
Oh, she's still a CEO? I thought she's stepped down.
Re: (Score:2)
Argh, copy/paste fail. Sorry. That was text I copy pasted in a thread on another article. I wrote my comment, then pasted the quote and hit submit before I realized I'd pasted the wrong text. The comment was meant to be:
All I've learned is that she's still being a manipulative social engineer. Throw the book at her.
Oh, she's still a CEO? I thought she's stepped down.
Masterful Manipulation (Score:5, Insightful)
She also deserves an award for being able to manipulate her way from recently-fallen-executive to quickly marry a scion of a San Diego hotel family, whose father funded her legal defense and showed up (initially anonymously) to defend her to reporters at trial. She bagged another rich old white guy while already having a national reputation for manipulating them for money!
She's clearly one of the greatest grifters in history -- and with this defense she's approaching the untouchability of the Teflon Don.
Re: (Score:3)
also wages a campaign to change their look and manipulate the jury is not surprising
Of course it's not surprising. Throughout the trial we have found out that she's quite savvy even using company funds to buy expensive jewelry so that she looks rich enough to be taken seriously as a CEO. She knows perception is the single most important thing for a scamming piece of shit.
What I really learned from this (Score:3)
I think that's the real reason they're coming down on her. Not the money lost, they've got plenty of it. It's that she made them look like fools and risked pulling back the curtain on the fact that they're all frauds. If people realize
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
She didn't act alone. She didn't mastermind this, and the real people responsible are still laughing from the balcony seats.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, make no mistake about it, I don't disagree there. I just also think that there's gonna be a strong incentive for "the powers that be" to consider the case closed with her, when she's barely the tip of the iceberg.
Re: Masterful Manipulation (Score:2)
She didn't act alone. She didn't mastermind this, and the real people responsible are still laughing from the balcony seats.
She insisted on soaking up all the glory and accolades on the way up, it's only fair she take all the hits on the way back down...
This episode reminds me of the recent HBO documentary I saw about the Dale, a preposterous three-wheeled 'car' that was going to save us from the 1970s gas shortage. The "inventor" a trans woman, was left virtually unchallenged as she made preposterous claims and promises, because so many really, really, wanted her to be right.
See: https://www.hbo.com/the-lady-a... [hbo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This episode reminds me of the recent HBO documentary I saw about the Dale, a preposterous three-wheeled 'car' that was going to save us from the 1970s gas shortage.
It doesn't sound like the car itself was fraudulent, just other claims she made about how many employees they had, facilities, existing investment, etc. The car itself actually existed. It was basically a kit car built around a stripped down motorcycle. Various vehicles like that existed back in those days.
Well, given that she sunk that ship herself... (Score:2)
... by claiming research results and insights that were entirely fictional, I do not think her staying means what the defense claims it means.
The important thing is how she was hyped and lauded as a female genius back when. and at a time where it was pretty clear these claims could not hold water. Also remember who hyped her and why. Holmes needs to go behind bars, no questions, but quite a few others need to have their faces slapped as well.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Aspirational thinking is one thing, and you've got to do it when you are building a company. But "faking it" is straight out fraud. More companies and C-level executives need to be held to account.
Re: Well, given that she sunk that ship herself... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Pretty much so.
Re: (Score:2)
A big part of the problem was Silicon Valley Woke Culture.
I don't think wokeness has much to do with it. Silicon Valley culture in general is full of exaggerated claims and fake it until you make it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly this is notoriously hard to do. Just look at any AAA failed games made in the past 10 years and you see its because of business decisions put on middle managers by pressure from the top. If the top says that your bonus is tied to when X game comes out by Christmas, you make SURE its out by Christmas. So is it the fault of the top, whos own pressure is on the stake owners or the manager who might of just been threatened about his job?
So you have this charismatic leader who seems to be some sort of g
Re: (Score:2)
You just gave me bad memories of our own ISO9001 work. I could never get over the idea that it's sole purpose was to make sure you were following your own processes, no matter how bad those processes might be. There was no judgement on the quality/completeness of a process, just that you followed it to the fucking letter. Seriously, WTF good is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Directly? Pretty worthless. But it pushes you do fix those processes and adjust them to what you are actually doing. Good processes are a safety-net, a second line of defense. Sure, a good engineer in the trenches is essential. No amount of processes can make a bad engineer or a non-engineer do good engineering work. But good, well documented processes make it far less likely for things to slip through and make it far easier to bring new (competent!) people up to speed and make it less likely that problem a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for good documented processes. This, however, left little room for whenever things don't go as documented. Not everything is cookbook, nor should it be.
Re: (Score:2)
Also remember who hyped her and why.
Who did?
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend you type "Theranos hype" or a variation thereof into the search engine of your choice.
Rats flee a sinking ship... (Score:2)
The plus side to living in the bilge is you get an early warning.
NYT article opens a worthy topic (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance defense is a crappy low margin practice area for lawyers. It's highly likely that the shabby old car and suit were because the guy genuinely didn't make that much money.
Wrong title (as typical) (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I wasn't the only one to catch that. For anyone who cares...
https://www.americanbar.org/gr... [americanbar.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What do they talk about? I feel like after hearing all the evidence over multiple months, and knowing when the time that I had to come to a decision was approaching I could give a verdict the second the time came.
That's brilliant journalism (Score:2)
Definition of chutzpah (Score:1)
Her defense seems to be, “I was incompetent to be CEO of a medical company, and the investors should have taken that into account.”
Sentence Her to the Lab (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous (Score:2)
One thing that's become clear from this trial is that the investors did no due diligence before throwing in their money, and the information wa
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 100% with you on this. Why are we judging someone upon their courtroom appearance? It makes no sense whatsoever. Any good lawyer is going to tell their client how to dress/act in the courtroom in order to put their best foot forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, in the future, to prevent jury manipulation by wearing different clothes, the plaintiff and defendant should each be issued a beige jumpsuit. That would make a good episode of Black Mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but tons of articles talked about Steve Jobs' clothing choices. If he went to trial (for whatever reason), you can be sure there would be articles about his choices at the trial, as well.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2)
I think he was mostly known for wearing the same clothes for weeks, and without showering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't over. (Score:2)
Big headline about the end of the trial, but what was the actual outcome? Was she actually found guilty? What was her sentence?
That's no summary, it's clickbait.
Almost everything in TFS is about what happened during the trial - aka stuff that's no longer news if the trial has ended.
And TFA isn't any better. Heck, it isn't even anything more - except for a more accurate headline: closing arguments have been made. That doesn't mean the trial is over, just the arguments. Deliberation and sentencing can ta
Watch Bull (Score:2)
Engage full hypocrite mode (Score:1)
Transition of an era (Score:2)
The intersectional victim group hierarchy shifted out from under her.
Being a woman in tech! a woman CEO! was enough for her to glide between inconvenient facts when she was getting started.
But by 2021, white women are just "Karens" who deserve no special consideration.
Society's obsessions shifted out from under her in that span of time. This will be an interesting period in future history books, to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a shame. Future generations won't even read books.
Re: (Score:2)
"This will be an interesting period in future history books, to be sure." That's a shame. Future generations won't even read books.
Because the format of the books is the important thing, lol, Whoosh.
Suddenly pregnant.. (Score:2)
We all know why she suddenly got pregnant just in time for the trial. At Theranos she played the role of manipulative overlord and scam artist almost to perfection, now she put on a new role like swapping masks as defendant and went to town manipulatively stacking the odds in her favor.
The Board (Score:2)